Sure, the perp would have outgunned ONE guy with his concealed pistol.

But how about if there were 50 guys and gals with concealed guns in the theater?

Would there still have been 70 innocent victims?

More gun control is not going to protect you from the crazy guy in the theater.

 

That's awful presumptuous. There are a lot of factors to take into consideration. Things like the shooting ability of the hero. The calibre of the weapon the hero was using. The proximity of the hero to the shooter. If you take someone of decent shooting ability standing within 20 feet of the bad guy they could, shoot the dude in the face rather easily. That equals threat stopped. If the hero was shooting a .45, considering how small the bad guy was, it could very conceivably "rocked" the bad guy's world enough to make him stop or at least slow down. Slow down is good, the people running would be able to run out with relative safety. If two or three rounds to the chest of the bad doesn't stop him then the hero needs to look at other targets. The face stands out as a good one. Again it all comes down to the ability of the hero.

 

I suspect the carnage would have been MUCH worse.

- Jack

 

Strongly disagree.

There is no accounting for crazy, but IMO if the perp suspected that say 5% percent of the audience was armed, he probably never would have tried this scheme.

 

If he knew that, in his crazed state, it would surely have added to the challenge and excitement ?!

 

We can armchair quarter back this to death, but the bottom line is what happened in Colorado is a tragedy that could have possibly been avoided. Having an ex wife that's bi-polar one get's well acquainted with mental health care and the stigma that goes with it. Sometimes mental illness is very obvious and sometimes it sneaks up on people and smacks them along side the head with out warning. The other problem is most insurances offer jack squat for mental health coverage, charge more for that family of meds, or can get out of coverage by saying it is a pre-existing condition. But no one want's to do anything about it because of the stigma of being labeled as "crazy" or "insane" because it's very similar to wearing a scarlet letter on your sweater for the rest of your life as far as society is concerned.

You may not be able to eliminate the threat but you most certainly can disable someone even if they are wearing full body armor. You can still cause significant trauma and shatter bone through body armor and if you know the weak points in body armor are you can eliminate a threat if you know where to shoot. Getting hit with a chunk of copper and lead at 900 to 1600 feet per second is going to pack a hell of a punch regardless if it hits flesh or body armor that energy has to go somewhere.

 

lenticular always see's the negative side of everything, however I enjoy reading his posts as they are always good for a laugh

 

I have mixed emotions regarding gun control. I have always said " If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have them".. I own several and would not think twice about popping anyone that broke into my home, and etc......nor would I hesitate dropping someone in a public place who was killing inocent people.

The other side of me having spent much time in places like China and Saudi Arabia where its illegal to own a gun and they are few and far between, have never read about a random killing in these places...

Do I think gun control would have stopped someone like this moron, NO.

 

I wish I could see the sense or logic in that response, but I'm afraid it beats me.

How what I have said could be seen as negative is beyond me.

Having spent over 30 years living in the States, travelling and flying all over the contiguous States many times, I have come to love the country, the people, and your family values. (Which believe me are mostly mis understood overseas...thanks to television in the main).

I am usually seen overseas defending a society that I have been proud to be part of.....

EXCEPT BEING ABLE TO WALK INTO WALLY WORLD AND BUY A GUN !!!!

 

That is mainly because you live in the US. You will seldom hear of violence in other countries in the US, except for terrorism, although in other countries, violence in the US is widely reported. That being said, violent crime in other countries is far higher than in the US. An example is Britain where violent crime is 5 time higher than in the US. Canada has twice the violent crime rate than the US.
Criminals there know they can get away with it. In China and Saudi Arabia, they get away with it once, and then are gone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...frica-U-S.html

Violent crime rates are dropping in the US, while in Great Britain, they are skyrocketing.

http://www.aic.gov.au/en/publication...20/cfi115.aspx

 

I'm wary of comparing crime rates among countries.

No doubt there are differences in how the data is collected, and what constitutes a crime.

Furthermore, there are substantial 'cultural differences'. Some countries (like ours) are a melting pot, with a collection of subcultures, including a few very violent ones. Other countries are homogenous, perhaps less violent to begin with and with little friction between subcultures.

That said, I do agree that criminals delight in knowing that their victims are unarmed.

As for the question of whether a crowd with a bunch of licensed concealed weapons carriers would have saved lives, here is why I think it would have:

1) Anyone licensed to carry has at least some training. We are not talking about randomly giving out guns to the general population.

2) The persons I know that are licensed to carry tend to be more responsible and have better judgement (and aim) than the average yahoo. They carry for protection, including to protect loved ones, and if necessary, innocent strangers.

3) Within 10 seconds (allowing time for shock and confusion), those carrying weapons and in reasonable range would have returned fire, forcing the shooter into a defensive position.

Yes, it would have been too little too late for the people shot in the first few seconds, but IMO there would be far fewer victims.

 

+1 two to the body, one to the head until threat is neutralized, keep moving, reload. Repeat.

 

I disagree. They said he was wearing body armor. Most CCWs are 9mm, with a few in the .45s. Given the fact he was spraying AR-15 and 12 gauge rounds everywhere, I doubt one person would've been able to aim and fire and hit something vital on the shooter without: A.) Getting shot himself B.) or hitting the hundreds of people pushing and shoving to get out of the theater.

Not too long ago there was a controlled study done (I think it was posted on here) where an intruder came into the classroom and a person carrying had to take him out. The intruder "killed" lots of civilians and the one person carrying shot like two people running in the line of fire and never got close to hitting the target due to adrenaline, etc.

tl;dr- just because you carry a gun, doesn't mean you are a hero.

 

you always talk smack about things you can't / won't understand and I wanted to thank you for the 4th of July, we couldn't have done it without people from your beloved island

 

The point that seems to be missing here is that those against ccw assume that the person with the ccw would be in the far opposite corner of the theater.

It's kinda like whack-a-mole, the person with the ccw could have been right next to the shooter and dropped him before the 2nd or 3rd round, if not sooner.

As posted above, it's all armchair quarter backing at this point. The biggest word in the dictionary is "IF".